hotshoe_: you didn’t provide any clue with your quote that it might be from something you were watching — rather than a creationist website which is what you typically copy/quote from.

The claim that I typically copy/quote from creationist websites is without foundation. Even worse, it’s false.

hotshoe_: …you didn’t provide any clue with your quote that it might be from something you were watching…but since I don’t taint my mind with those sites, I had no way of knowing.

Actually you did have a way of knowing without going to any site other than TSZ and I did provide a clue. I posted a link to the debate here at TSZ. Next time ask me before trying to rip my throat out. Thank you.

Mung’s the smartest guy posting at TSZ, remember? At least he told us he is. So what if the topic here was “is evolution guided by an external intelligent entity?. Clever Mung found a quote to mine where he could misrepresent the views of a real scientist who was saying the exact opposite of ID claims. Isn’t Mung the most clever fellow?

In the OP I ask what it means for ID. What it seems to mean for ID is that an ID supporter when asked how evolution is guided provides links that support the mainstream narrative and fail to support ID in any way shape or form.

I’m confused. Is the topic moderation or the claims of the ID community regarding how evolution is in fact guided by an intelligent entity?

If you’d prefer to discuss moderation and the rules of the site, there are of course threads for that. But I’m hoping you’ll put the earlier misunderstandings behind us and post about how ID guides evolution.

Adapa: So you’re saying we should assume your blatant quote-mining was the result of your stupidity and not duplicity?

OK, I can accept that.

But then what do we do with his statement that he’s smarter than everyone here? I mean, other than laugh at such delusion?

Chalk that up to grinding, irrevocable stupidity as well? Maybe, since he’s clearly not good at catching on, but it’s a bit hard to avoid the fact that he’s especially stupid about anything he disagrees with.

Given that there are clear violations of the rules in this thread, and given that moderator Patrick has decided that the violations of the rules are justified, my participation in this thread is at an end.

Mung:
Given that there are clear violations of the rules in this thread, and given that moderator Patrick has decided that the violations of the rules are justified, my participation in this thread is at an end.

Given that there was a clear instance of dishonest quote mining and given that the quote miner was called out it’s not surprising the quote miner would lack the integrity to apologize and continue.

I stress this because there are too many people, including many on our side of the ID/creation fence, who think that the question “Is evolution guided?” is not a scientific question. It is, and it has been answered by science — in the negative.

I am not persuaded. I think if it can’t be addressed empirically AT ALL, then it is not a scientific question. And this question has NOT been answered by science in any way, or even addressed. It has simply been ignored by science as irrelevant and unhelpful. Because it’s not a scientific question.

Science is not a purely empirical process, and hypotheses are rejected for reasons other than falsification.

Virtually any hypothesis can be rescued by the addition of ad hoc assumptions that bring it into line with the evidence. The “phlogiston has negative mass” assumption is a classic example. A similar stunt can be attempted with regard to guided evolution: “Evolution is guided, but the Guider guides in a way that makes it look unguided.”

Scientists reject these ad-hocified hypotheses not because they are falsified, but for other reasons: they aren’t parsimonious, their assumptions are unjustified, they seem less likely to be true, etc.